Looks like the 18-200mm VR can do marco decently~ But is it just my
own bias opinion... it seems to me that my s6000fd can do marcos even
better.

Actually, I think compact cameras are excellent for macro. They give a greater depth of field so more of the image stays in focus. They are also useful because the camera and setup are very lightweight and easy to manoeuvre into position.

The Nikon 18-200VR is not my choice for macros, by any means. I posted simply to show that it is usable because you asked if it was!

None the less... I think the 18-200mm is the one I'm gonna go with.
It seems to be the most versitile and best bang for my bucks. I think
I'll go with the Sigma version instead of the Nikkor... I'm on a
tight budget. And with the money I can save, I'll have more money
left over to get the Sigma 30mm f1.4.

Does anyone have any objections to getting the Sigmas?

That looks like quite a verstaile combo to me. I have the Sigma 150 macro, as you know, and also the Sigma 10-20 wide angle and I like both of them.

18-200 is such a useful range and, given your budget, seems a good choice to me. Once you have used it for a while, you can check your shots to see what focal lengths you use most and can get more specialised lenses accordingly, later on.

If nobody can comment specifically on the Sigmas you're contemplating, you can search for independent reviews. But at the price those lenses are, it seems hard to go wrong. You can end up agonising over small differences of sharpness, vignetting, chromatic aberration and all sorts of things. But we all have to work within what we can afford and want to carry around.

-- hide signature --

******************************************************
I have a home on pbase
http://www.pbase.com/claypaws/
If you have the time to look
******************************************************